Opinion
2:22-cv-00576-RFB-DJA
08-19-2022
A&A GLOBAL IMPORTS, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. CBJ DISTRIBUTING LLC d/b/a CANNABIZ SUPPLY, a Nevada limited liability company; NORTH AMERICAN DISTRIBUTING, LLC d/b/a CANNABIZ SUPPLY, a Nevada limited liability company; and CHARLES J. FOX, an individual, Defendants. NORTH AMERICAN DISTRIBUTING, LLC d/b/a CANNABIZ SUPPLY, a Nevada limited liability Company, Counterclaimant, v. A&A GLOBAL IMPORTS, INC., a California corporation, Counterdefendant.
MARQUIS AURBACH Brian R. Hardy, Esq. Harry L. Arnold, Esq. Law Offices of Philip A. Kantor PC Philip A. Kantor, Esq., NV Bar No. 6701 Attorneys for Defendants/Counterclaimants. LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP Michael J. McCue Meng Zhong, Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant.
MARQUIS AURBACH Brian R. Hardy, Esq. Harry L. Arnold, Esq. Law Offices of Philip A. Kantor PC Philip A. Kantor, Esq., NV Bar No. 6701 Attorneys for Defendants/Counterclaimants.
LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP Michael J. McCue Meng Zhong, Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant.
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO (1) EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS; AND (2) SET TIME UNDER NRS 41.660(1)(b)(2) TO FILE SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE AFTER FED. R. CIV. PROC. 15(a) ELECTION
(FIRST REQUEST)
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant A&A Global Imports, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants/Counterclaimant CBJ Distributing, LLC d/b/a Cannabiz Supply, North American Distributing, LLC d/b/a Cannabiz Supply (“Defendant”), and Charles J. Fox (collectively, “Defendants”) file this First Stipulation and Proposed Order to (1) extend the deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's motion to dismiss from August 29, 2022 to September 5, 2022, so as to coordinate Defendants' response date with Counterclaimant's time under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a) to alternatively amend its three counterclaims, and (2) set the time under NSR 41.660(1)(b)(2) to file a special motion to strike to run from Counterclaimant's election to either amend its counterclaims under Rule 15(a) or alternatively, Defendants' election to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss. This is the first request to set or extend either time for such a pleading.
Good cause exists for the parties' limited modified scheduling order for the following reasons: On Monday, August 15, 2022, Plaintiff timely filed a motion to dismiss Defendant's counterclaim [Dkt. #22], which raised the litigation privilege as a defense along other First Amendment issues. The parties met and conferred regarding the appropriate sequence of events in response to Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, as the filing of amended counterclaims under Rule 15(a) could moot, not only Plaintiff's pending motion to dismiss, but also any need or reason to file a special motion to strike under NSR 41.660(1)(b)(2). Accordingly, the parties agreed to coordinate the time for any opposition to the motion to dismiss with Counterclaimant's right to file amended counterclaims under Rule 15(a), and Defendants/Counterclaimant agreed that the time for which to file any motion under NRS 41.660(1)(b)(2) would run from either the filing of amended counterclaims or an opposition to Plaintiff's motion to dismiss if Counterclaimant opted not to voluntarily amend its counterclaims.
Accordingly, the parties have agreed, stipulated, and seek Court approval of the following:
(1) Defendants' deadline to respond to the Motion to Dismiss is extended to September 5, 2022; and
(2) Plaintiff's statutory time in which to file a special motion to strike under NSR 41.660(1)(b)(2) will be either (a) the normal 60 days from the filing of amended counterclaims under Rule 15(a), or (b) if no amended counterclaims are filed in response to Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, 14 days from the filing of Defendants' opposition to the motion to dismiss.
IT IS SO AGREED AND STIPULATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.